Re: Religious tolerance before it was hip

It would be interesting to examine the evidence on this; Did Jesus bear
arms? Are there records of him raising armies? Are there records of him
verbally attacking the enemies of his nation? Did Jesus exhort his
followers to kill their enemies? Did he command his followers to kill
those who criticised his teaching? Did he participate in the killing of
his enemies?

Did Muhammad (S) bear arms in Mecca? Did he raise armies in Mecca?
Did Muhammad (S) tell his followers to kill his enemies while in Mecca?
While Muhammad (S) did not do these things, from the VERY BEGINNING he
warned his people that God punishes men if they reject the truth,
including rejecting the Prophets. He warned that God destroys those
that oppose his Messengers. The Quran always speaks about an APPOINTED
TIME when God's grip closes. And when that moment happens not even the
debate of Abraham as recorded in Genesis can prevent the Most High from
destroying a town.

Was Jesus (AS) ever in a position to even establish political power
where he could estalish justice by force of arms? No, so your point is
really irrelevant. The fact of the matter is you need to look more so
at the tradition of Israel, when a Prophet did GAIN POLITICAL POWER to
establish what Jesus (AS) would or would not do. They waged wars, as
well as killed the enemies of God. Further, the New Testament is full
of direct quotataions of Jesus (AS) not always speaking in such nice
and lovely terms to the Rabbis and Pharisees.

It is speculative at best to theorise about whether Jesus would have
done all the things that Muhammad did if he had been given the chance.
Indeed, there are fairly obvious clues in the NT which cast doubt on
this sort of theory:

Actually, I find it more speculative to assume that he would go against
an established law firmly rooted in the Israelites tradition of
PROPHECY. In fact, the 'fairly obvious clues' are not so fairly
obvious for your side.


The wilderness narrative makes it clear that Jesus could easily have
gained mastery over the world if he colluded with Satan. He chose not
to. This implies two things:
1. Had Jesus chosen the path of violence/conquest he would have
succeeeded.
2. Jesus' rejected this path.

Your assumption is grounded in the fact that Prophet's waged war for
greed and wealth. But the Old Testament is quite clear that wars were
waged to fight the enemies of God. Further, I do not think that Satan
promising Jesus nothing but worldy temptation to reject God, as well as
join Satan proves anything regarding the point that Prophets waged war
to establish justice. Your whole perspective is rooted in the frame of
reference that wars are unjust, or that killing the enemies of God is
unjust. Jesus (AS) himself considered certain Rabbis and Pharisees as
enemies of God. Does that make him a hypocrite for castigating them in
avery fiery terms? Is that 'turning the other cheek'?


Then there is Jesus' own teaching, which exhorts His followers to love
their enemies rather than try to wipe them out.


That's a blatant mis-representation of the position of Jesus and the
rest of the Messengers of God. The Prophets are sent to warn, meaning
they desire that their people be save from GOD'S JUDGEMENT, with this
judgement being manifest in this world DURING THE LIFE OF A RASOOL, as
opposed to just the next. Prophets are sincere advisors, as stated in
the Quran. They establish that they are not motivated by any wordly
wealth, and their past life before prophethood testify to their
integrity quite well. Thus, the Prophet as well as his followers
attempt to reform the people, with their opponents best interests in
mind. They are SINCERE towards the disbelievers, patiently tolerating
the persecution and hoping their enemies would be guided. But their is
a limit to it all. When it becomes clear THROUGH GOD'S REVELATION that
these people are enemies of God, no longer susceptible to the truth,
the line is de-marcated. Noah was commanded to a build a ship Mike.
What would happen, Noah knew fully well.

"The Rightuous would inherit the Earth."

The enemies of GOD are wiped out, not the enemies of Muhammad, the
Companions, Jesus, the Apostles, Moses, the Israelites. These latter
people are meant to break off all their ties with the ENEMIES OF GOD,
despite these 'enemies' being their own fathers, mothers, sons,
children. They are suppose to abolish all ties for the sake of God
irrespective of their personal affiliations with certain people. Noah
knew this fact well, when he called out to his son in the waters.
Moses, when he came back from Mount Sinai, did not spare an Israelite
who partook on calf-worship.


This is rather simplifying things. Jesus' primary mission was to
proclaim the manifest coming of the Kingdom of God.


Who is simplifying things? The simplification is to assume a 'Kingdom
of God' was nothing but a fairy-tale wonderland, where lover and mercy
would not be established without justice and enforcement of God's law.
Such a concept of a fairy-tale wonderland could never have pacified the
Apostles, who were extremely distressed at the fact that Jesus' was
being rejected by his own people, and that they were in a position of
low-liness. Of course we accept that Jesus (AS) came to prepare the
way for Kigndom of God, and what is clear from his own words is that
part of it involved tearing down old walls to bring in the new.
Prophets warn, as well as give glad tidings.

"So when the lord of the vineyard comes,
what will he do to those farmers?"

They say to him, "The bad men he will badly destroy,
and the vineyard he will rent to other farmers,
who will give him back the fruit in their seasons."

Who is Jesus talking to in this Parable? Whom were the servants that
were killed by the farmers? I don't see anything but an allusion to
the impending destruction of the rejectors of God, for their killing
Zechariah as well as being full involved in the death of John the
Baptist, and attempting to kill Jesus (AS) despite his manifest
miracles. Not only destruction, but the VINEYARD would be rented to
OTHER FARMERS, who will fulfill the rights of the KING by giving him of
his fruits. So there are two facts in this parable:

1. The rejectors will be destroyed
2. The rejectors will be replaced by another nation.

"For this reason I tell you
that the sovereignty of God will be taken from you
and will be given to a nation producing its fruit.
And the one falling on this stone will be shattered;
but whomever it falls upon, it will crush him."

There is nothing but elements of force involved in this powerful
parable. Further, the words of Jesus clearly to the fact that not only
would this NATION be impenetrable from a DEFENSIVE point of view, but
it will be unstoppable from the OFFENSIVE point ov view. All of these
prophecies are in line with the Old Testament predictions of that Final
Prophet. The 'Paraclete' is not some spiritual phenomenon that is
confined to the 'hearts' of the believers, contrary to the claims of
the Church.

What happened after Jesus (AS) died. Certain elements in Israel
revolted under their own conceptions of the 'messiah', despite knowing
what the whole mission of Jesus (AS) was, and the Roman Empire laid
waste to Israel, destroying the Temple and scattering the Israelites
from the Temple forever. And the Temple still has not been built.
Jesus' first portion was fulfilled, with the other nation still
awaiting the SOVEREIGNITY God would grant to them. When "Iqra"
happened, the second portion of the prophecy was fulfilled. This nation
was un-defeatable. Wherever they went, they could not be pushed back,
which will bring us to the prophecy of Daniel later on.

How does one reconcile this
with the idea that the message of Jesus' was all about love and mercy.

Simple. One doesn't. Jesus' message was not *all* about love and mercy.
It was about the Kingdom of God. Central to this is love and mercy, but
there can be none of these without justice and holiness as well.


Isn't part of justice to punish the guilty? The Kingdom of God is not
some figurative parable.

"For this reason I tell you
that the sovereignty of God will be taken from you
and will be given to a nation producing its fruit.
And the one falling on this stone will be shattered;
but whomever it falls upon, it will crush him."

It's a nation Mike, not some Holy Ghost that would descend in the heart
of the believers. The Israelites had a huge tradition of this idea of
force, and they were awaiting the day they re-established themselves
POLITICALLY, in the words of Jesus (AS) soveriegnity. In fact, this
notion of waiting was still happening right before the coming of
Muhammad (S). The Jews who settled in Yathrib after their scattering
from Israel would proclaim to the idolaters that the day would soon
come that they and the awaited Prophet would finally defeat the
idolaters for good. In fact, the very reason they settled there was
because of reading certain signs in the Torah. The OT is full of
allusions to the descendants of Kedar. But the problem was that, when
this Prophet arose from the very people they were boasting against,
they became puffed up with pride, rejecting him, and further, tried to
fight him. The Kingdom of God is an actual reality, and the "Lord
descended from Paran with His Fiery Law", just as predicted, 600 years
later. Even the Christians could not escape this idea of war, awaiting
the retrun of Christ to rule the earth. The Armageddon is a telling
tale to the idea of God's sovereignity returning to the land,
destroying the various pagan nations.

The problem of the OT and NT is that the lying scribes distroted the
fact that the Kingdom of Heaven would be established from the line of
Ishmael (AS), so they sent their whole nation into confusion with their
lies. They even infiltrated the Christian movement, with a man by the
name of Paul who distorted the concept of the Kingdom into some
paganistic conception of blood and flesh. The Jews and Christians were
rent into confusion, and the Muslims, who have incorporated Bani
israeliyyat tradition, have been infected with it as well. The concept
of the Mehdi, and re-establishment of justice are nothing but
fabrications. ibn Khaldoon already gave a sever critique of those
hadeeth in his Muqaddimah hundreds of years ago.

There is a particular reason why God gave Jesus (AS) MANIFEST miracles.

To prove his prophethood. why else?

His miracles were significantly greater than the miracles of Amos,
Isaiah, and Jeremiah don't you think. What other does Jesus (AS) mean
when he states:

"Again he sent other servants, more than the first,
and they did the same thing to them.
And later he sent to them his son
saying, 'They will respect my son."

Why would the king send a son, after sending his servants? It's just
making too much sense Mike, the virgn birth, the manifest miracles such
as raising a dead man to life...

Jesus (AS) went into the TEMPLE, i.e. Holy Ground, and turned over the
tables of the money-lenders. Jesus (AS) was keen on JUSTICE, as all
the Semitic Prophets of old. This one act thoroughly abolishes any
notion that if Jesus (AS) attained political power, he would have
maintained a position of 'turning the other cheek'.

Does it?

This is a stretch, even for you, Asim.

So I stretch Mike...


Are you saying that Jesus would have reneged on his own teaching if
he'd been able to gain political power? Wouldn't that make him as much
of a hypocrite as the Pharisees and scribes he repeatedly criticised?

He would only be reneging on his teachings if he was against justice,
and using war to fight against injustice. It is not the Muslims that
accept this proposition regarding Jesus that he would be reneging on
his own teachings, it is you that accepts the proposition regarding
Jesus. So the problem of hypocrisy ifor Jesus (AS) s not on our side.
Further, IT IS YOUR OWN SCRIPTURE that states he turned over the table
for justice. Are you saying he failed in his own teachings in this
respect? I don't have any problem with Jesus' doing such things,
because I do not claim that what he meant by love and mercy, as well as
forgiving your enemy was an ABSOLUTE toleration for evil everywhere.
In fact, most secular scholars have come to this fact regarding Jesus'
as well. It just took them two millenium to do what the Muslims
already knew since the time of the Quran's revelation.

And I would like to add, in my respecting the New Testament as well as
reverencing it, Jesus NEVER condemned the Pharisees and Scribes for
their zeal for justice as well as a desire to secure the rights of the
poor and meek, BECAUSE THEY HAD NO ZEAL FOR THEM. He condemned them
for their :LACK of zeal and hypocrisy. So it would not make him a
hypocrite by fighting injustice if he gained political power. And this
is further confirmed by the fact of his condemning certain people,
calling them liars, as well as being beautiful on the outside, but ugly
on the inside. If we were to accept that Jesus was turning the other
cheek, than this turning the other cheek is not necessarily forgiving
your enemies. How ironic would it be that you can kill them with your
tongue, but not with the sword. Your interpetation that what is meant
by the Sermon of the Mount is in ABSOLUTE TERMS doesn't make any sense
Mike... and you know it...

If your going to quote the sermon of the Mount, please make sure to
remind us that nowhere does it deny the fact that there is always an
APPOINTED TIME WHERE GOD PUNISHES THE GUILTY. Jesus' sermon was meant
to enjoin the Apostles to do good acts, tolerate the evil of the
enemies as was all the teachings of the Prophets. It is the GENERAL
ATTITUDE towards life, but when certain events transpire, never do
Prophets call for passivism in the face of blatant violation of the law
of God. If we were to accept your conclusions than we might as well
declare that, in your zeal to defend Jesus (AS) from hypocrisy, you
have attributed hypocrisy to the father:

"You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. "

You would be making the Father a hypocrite when the time came for God
to punish his enemies. Even according to Jesus (AS), and the parable of
the king and the son, God does not always turn the cheek. He sent one
servant, he sent another, and than he finally sent his son. The
appointed time was coming Mike, and it came. Further, remember that
Muhammad (S) did not migrate until God told him. He did not wage war
until God told him. The punishment of God was not afflicted until:

"They testified to their OWN KUFR."


Jesus never talked about attaining political power. His methods were
those of forming a counter-culture; one where one combats evil and
violence with love and forgiveness. Jesus specifically taught
compliance with the authorities:
"Render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar..."


De-contextualization... You forgot the rest of it, "And render unto God
what is God's". Jesus' was responding the attempts of the Rabbis and
Pharisees to have him killed. There was a reason Jesus spoke with them
in Parables. They were opposing him, trying to kill him, as well as
halt his mission. In this case, they wanted to make it seem like he
was a rebel, not acknowledging the Roman law. But what do we find?
Another brilliant response by Jesus (AS) to prevent the Rabbis and
Pharisees from having him killed, and his mission ended. Everything is
God's, so even if your rendering the taxes to Caesar, everything still
ultimately belongs to God.

There was a reason that the propaganda campaign of the Rabbis and
Pharisees did not work. Jesus' (AS) was a lot smarter than them, and
he was educated by God himself. He was further supported by the Holy
Spirit, i.e. Gabriel, according to the Quran. And this statement of
the Quran is not superfluous, because it is the same angel who
delivered the Quran to Muhammad (S), and certain Jews of Muhammad's
(AS) time called Gabriel their enemy, based upon the false pretense
that he inflicted God's punishment, while Michael was the implementer
of God's mercy.

"If someone makes you walk a mile, walk two..."


Another example of de-contextualization..

Where did Jesus talk about gaining political power then?


When did Muhammad (S) talk about political power in Mecca? The gaining
of political power is dependent on the success of a Messenger in
gaining a significant following, which Jesus (AS) during his life never
did. Muhammad (S) on the other hand did. If a Messenger happens to
gain a number of followers, they migrate and establish themselves in
their own land politically. In the case of Israel, it was CANAAN, in
the case of Muhammad and the nation of Ishmael, it was MEDINA. The
battle between truth and falsehood is initiated in the level of war,
with the followers of a Prophet bein granted success. All 70 leaders
of Quraysh were killed in Badr, the Day of Furqan. The only one that
acted like a coward was Abu Lahab and he contracted a disease upon
hearing the news of the Qurayshi defeat, and he died an ignomious
death.

If a Messenger does not gain enough followers, they migrate at a
particular point in time, such as in the dark, aka Lut and His
Followers, and God inflicts his punishment through a natural disaster,
and as Psalms says:

"The Righteuous shall inherit the earth."

There is something special and unique that happens in the lifetime of a
Rasool Mike, that does not happen when he is not around. Jesus
breathed life into clay birds, as well as raised the dead by the
command of God.

Which of his teachings gives you the idea He would have turned
hypocrite and reversed His own teaching, given the chance? Would this
be the action of the "perfect man", as Muslims believe Him to be?


Like I said, you operating under your own assumptions of what you think
Jesus meant in the Sermon of the Mount. The Christian world as been
socially conditioned for many years now to think that Jesus spoke in
absolute terms when it came to loving the enemy and so on. Jesus was
talking about loving enemies in the hope that they would repent, not
that they continue their ways of being enemies towards God. If Jesus
believed that, than he would be a hypocrite.


Small question - how did Moses wage war? If so, upon whom?


Book of Numbers Chapter 31

NUMBERS 31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
NUMBERS 31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward
shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
NUMBERS 31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of
yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and
avenge the LORD of Midian.

Here Moses is talking about avenging the LORD of Midian, i.e. this is a
battle avenging the Lord...

NUMBERS 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD
commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

NUMBERS 31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them
that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba,
five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the
sword.

NUMBERS 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian
captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their
cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.




And no matter how much you try and deny these realities, you cannot.

There is nothing to deny. God in his wisdom uses the nations to work
out Justice amongst other things. Cyrus the Mede conquered Jerusalem;
did this make him a prophet? No! But God was using him all the same.


God had also pro-pelled the Phillistines through the army of Saul, with
David defeating Goliath. And than God united kinship with Prophethood
through David, where the Prophet Kind continued to fight armies in the
way of God.


Success in battle does not make one a prophet. It is neither
requirement nor proof.

The prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled with the coming of Muhammad (S).

Really? Which one?

The mainstream consensus seems to be that Daniel's prophecies were
fulfilled prior to the coming of Muhammad; the four kingdoms (which I
believe is the prophecy you are alluding to) being Babylon, Persia,
Macedonian, and Roman. It's only the more whacky Islamic
pseudo-scholars who pick-n-mix their way through scripture who try to
pull this one out of the hat.

hmmm... But you still haven't explaing the eleventh horn of the Roman
Empire, which was the most dangerous beast. What about the 11th horn
being known for it's eloquent speech, who could that be? We only know
of the infamous ten persecutions of the Christians, each representing
the ten kings of Rome. But who is the little horn Mike? Why is the
little horn known possess a human mouth and eyes, as opposed to the
irrational brutes of the other empires? And further this horn spoke
blasphemies against God. What happened when that eleventh horn came
into power? What was Constantine known for? Could it have been the
fact that the trinity became official state doctrine, supplanting on a
governmental level the 'religion of Jesus'. It was a momentous day
when the Council, through 'reason' and 'speech' won the day, and Jesus'
religion was declared based upon an overwhelming council composed of
wealthy Christians who a prior deemed heretic those that held Jesus to
be no more than a man. That horn changed 'the law and the times'.
Let us not forget that the followers who held this later belief refused
to compromise, and persecution continued and they sought refuge in
places like North Africa, where they converted to Islam when the
message of truth came to them.

It was than the Son of Man came and conquered all those regions
mentioned in the Prophecy, destroying the final horn. And it was only
the armies representing Muhammad (S), the Companions, otherwise know as
the Saints of the Most High, did those lands fall under one rule. But
let us also not forget to mention the fact that the Israelites never,
ever conquered all those regions in the prophecy. Nor have the
Christians. Let us not forget that the prophecy of Moses speaks about
the Lord descending from Paran with his ten thousand saints, and the
Song of Solomon speaking of the Chief among ten thousand.

"It was not you who threw (Muhammad), it was God who threw."


Interesting; did the Jews believe in a "final Prophet"? If so, the only
reference I can see to one is the Messiah - Jesus. If this is true then
Jesus is the "last prophet", which would be a little inconvenient for
you. No other "seal on prophecy" is mentioned in the Jewish texts, and
certainly is not alluded to in Christian ones.


And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites
from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied
not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then?
Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.

ART THOU THAT PROPHET? And he answered, No.

Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to
them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice
of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as
said the prophet Esaias. (...). And they asked him, and said unto him,
Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither
that prophet?

The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

During the first century A.D. the official leaders of Judaism were
still looking for the fulfillment of Moses' prediction (footnote to
John I: 21).

The bottom line is that violence of the sort supported/encouranged by
Muhammad does not sit easily with Jesus' teaching.

But what happened to your claims of compromise and joining against the
forces of secularism? What about dialogue?

Contrary to your claims Mike, the evidence is on our side. It has
always been.. Jesus prophesized the Kingdom of God, and it was
fulfilled long ago... The armies of Muhammad (S) burst forth from
Paran, and continued their march from North Africa to Persian, and it's
extent included every single land foretold in the prophecy of Daniel.
And this happened AFTER the Little Horn had spoken, and Muhammad (S)
restored Jesus' position to that of slavehood of God, the epitome of
what it means to be Muslim.

There is no return of the Messiah in Israel, their is no
re-establishment of the New Jerusalem, because that New Jerusalen with
all it's emphasis on Arabian civilization, from camels to the names of
the tribes mentioned clearly points to the Kaaba. Zionism, whether
Jewish, Christian, or Muslims, is nothing but a patent lie that traces
its origins to the scribes who could not bear the fact that the Last
Prophet would come from Ishmael.

And history has spoken and nobody can deny it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proof?
    ... MOSES AND THE PROPHET ... The Word of God in the Prophet's mouth ... A Prophet like unto Moses ... Jesus - the Prophet like unto Moses ...
    (soc.culture.indonesia)
  • the true messehe of Jesus christ
    ... In Chapter as-Saff:6, God quotes Jesus as ... Jesus as a prophet: “And the crowds said, ... The translation of that verse has been amended ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • THE TRUE MESSAGE OF JESUS CHRIST
    ... In Chapter as-Saff:6, God quotes Jesus as ... Jesus as a prophet: “And the crowds said, ... The translation of that verse has been amended ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • THE TRUE MESSAGE OF JESUS CHRIST
    ... In Chapter as-Saff:6, God quotes Jesus as ... Jesus as a prophet: “And the crowds said, ... The translation of that verse has been amended ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • THE TRUE MESSAGE OF JESUS CHRIST
    ... In Chapter as-Saff:6, God quotes Jesus as ... Jesus as a prophet: “And the crowds said, ... The translation of that verse has been amended ...
    (rec.motorcycles)